Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Effect of editors’...
  3. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis
CCBYNC Open access
Research

Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4178 (Published 22 June 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e4178

Data supplement

  • Web Extra

    Extra material supplied by the author

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Data Supplement - Web table 1: Reporting of CONSORT for Abstracts items across journals in 2006
    • Data Supplement - Web appendix 1: Segmented regression with one group—model to get an estimate of the difference between pre and post intervention
    • Data Supplement - Web table 2: Parameter estimates from segmented regression models predicting the mean monthly number of items reported per abstract
    • Data Supplement - Web table 3: Reporting of CONSORT for Abstracts items per journal in (A) 2006, (B), 2007, (C) 2008, and (D) 2009
    • Data Supplement - Web appendix 2: Change in the mean number of items reported per abstract for primary outcome (0-9) over time (from January 2006 to December 2009) before and after the introduction of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines implemented in January 2008 by journal

Related articles

See more

Cited by...

  • Study protocol for the TRUSt trial: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the standard of care with a transitional pain service for patients at risk of chronic postsurgical pain undergoing surgery
  • Intervention reporting of clinical trials published in high-impact cardiology journals: effect of the TIDieR checklist and guide
  • Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
  • Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation
  • Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study
  • Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research
  • Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
  • Sackler Colloquium on Improving the Reproducibility of Scientific Research: Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions
  • Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol
  • The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement
  • Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
  • Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
  • Effectiveness of a nurse educational oral feeding programme on feeding outcomes in neonates: protocol for an interrupted time series design
  • Systematic review finds major deficiencies in sample size methodology and reporting for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials
  • Development of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) checklist: A guideline for the reporting of incidence and prevalence studies in neuroepidemiology
  • Eighth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication
  • Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials
  • Evaluating the feasibility of complex interventions in mental health services: standardised measure and reporting guidelines
  • Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide
  • "Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study
Back to top